Page 1 of 3

xbox 360

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:21 pm
by Burrito
have it yet does anyone?

any good is it?

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:05 pm
by patrikG

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:38 pm
by Nathaniel
That /. article is interesting... but be sure you see this comment.

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:04 pm
by m3mn0n
I know someone who bought 6 at retail and has sold all of them on eBay at at least $1,100 each. Insane!

I've yet to get one (don't want one until Halo 3), but I've played it at EB Games and the Call of Duty 2 demo I thought lacked graphical quality, but had great game play and the king kong demo had weird game play, but you felt as if you were watching a movie. AMAZING GRAPHICS and special effects. Hell, for the first 20 seconds or so I couldn't figure out if it was a cut scene or if I was controlling him...(since there is absolutely no HUD while you play) I finally figured it out because it said 'Press B to drop the girl' :lol:

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:09 pm
by josh
From the screenshots battlefield 2 looks worse then the PC version to me, plus I think the idea of console games are ridiculous, what is a console but essentially a computer

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:45 pm
by Trenchant
jshpro2 wrote:From the screenshots battlefield 2 looks worse then the PC version to me, plus I think the idea of console games are ridiculous, what is a console but essentially a computer
Exactly my opinion. Computers can do the same thing faster and more! I bought an XBox but it was after they dropped in price like crazy and the only reason was so that I could have lan parties with friends.

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:15 pm
by Burrito
jshpro2 wrote:From the screenshots battlefield 2 looks worse then the PC version to me, plus I think the idea of console games are ridiculous, what is a console but essentially a computer
Completely agree I do. Worthless consoles are. Much rather play on my PC I would.

better, faster, stronger and easier to control they are.

but want to know if anyone has tried the xbox 360 I do

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:22 am
by m3mn0n
I see it as the levelling of the playing field. In the gaming world, FPS has a lot to do with your success and that is based a lot of your hardware.

In a gaming arena where everyone shares the same hardware, it's less about how much you can spend, but rather, how well you can perform. :wink:

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:36 am
by josh
as long as the game is playable (20 fps) i think its fair, its someones own fault if they buy a game their pc cant handle

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:00 am
by m3mn0n
But you see, there is different levels of "handling it" and then you get to the graphic tweaking with configs and whatnot.

With consoles is so much easier to be competitive... you just plug controllers, hook it up to your tv, and play. No overclocking for leet performance, no config tweaks, no $400 graphics cards, and etc.

And don't even get me started on cheating... heh it's so much easier to do it on a PC, whereas with a console if you have Xbox Live for example, your hardware is scanned for modifications that could allow cheating, and the only real cheating out there is exploiting game glitches (which are patched via Live updates).

Whereas on the PC you have aimbots, wallhacks and etc. where the only defense is to continously ban cheaters, and that can only happen when a server admin is around...

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:34 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
Consoles are also (laregly and eventually) cheaper than a full blown PC (with high game performance). I've only ever owned a Sega Genesis, since then I've not seen the point of a separate console. That said they do have a place in the gaming world. The hardware is nearly always sold at a loss too...;) You get stung by the higher game prices...

There's also the standardisation advantage. Any XBox game will run identically on any XBox - the same cannot be said of PCs.

Yep, we don't all see the point of them, but do seem to have their fanatical followers from the PC world...

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:38 am
by Grim...
Sami wrote:...the Call of Duty 2 demo I thought lacked graphical quality, but had great game play and the king kong demo had weird game play, but you felt as if you were watching a movie.
So Call of Duty was better, then?
jshpro2 wrote:as long as the game is playable (20 fps) i think its fair, its someones own fault if they buy a game their pc cant handle
Are you nuts? I play CS:S at 75-99fps and I can tell when it drops below 70. Less than 60 and it starts affecting my game :(

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:45 am
by Skittlewidth
The day I have a 32 inch screen on my pc and a big sofa for an <span style='color:red;text-decoration:blink' title='Alert a moderator!'>grilled spam</span>, is the day I will stop using games consoles... 8)

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:44 am
by phpdevuk
yet to try the 360 out yet, looks pretty cool from what I've seen so far. Consoles are best for sunday afternoons lounging on the sofa playing games with a pack of beer, those times when sitting in front of the monitor is just too much work :D

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:32 pm
by m3mn0n
Grim... wrote:
Sami wrote:...the Call of Duty 2 demo I thought lacked graphical quality, but had great game play and the king kong demo had weird game play, but you felt as if you were watching a movie.
So Call of Duty was better, then?
I'd say the game play from this is better, same goes for quality of graphics.

What I meant really from that comment was it looked amazing since it was being played on a X360 and it was a n HDTV but you saw choppy edges and the players lacked real facial detail.

Halo 2 on Xbox had better top to bottom graphics than COD2 on Xbox 360. But since COD2 was in HD, you saw better bump mapping, sharper textures in some places, amazing smoke effects, and awesome special effects that would surely make the Xbox get choppy.